One of the beauties of this site is that allows you and others to compare your own views and beliefs from the past to the present to see how accurate your past views were, to see past errors and hopefully avoid them in the present. But some just pretend not to notice their past errors.....

Foxy July 2019.."Historians, writers, archaeologists, academics, are now re-thinking Australia's perceptions of Indigenous land management. They are the ones arguing that the first Australians had complex systems of agriculture that went beyond the hunter-gatherer tag."

Foxy June 2021 ..."Sutton and Walshe provide extensive evidence to support their argument that classical Aboriginal society was a hunter-gatherer society..."

And utterly convinced of her truth both times.

Paul July 2019...."in fact the evidence is that at the time of European settlement, and there after, most tribes encountered by Europeans were settled people."

Paul June 2020...." No one denies Aboriginal people were not successful hunter/gathers,..."

Settled hunter/gathers??

I've now scanned the Suttoon book. As I said earlier, it doesn't really have anything in it that I didn't already know and didn't try to educate the Pascoe flying-monkeys about two years ago. The only thing I found interesting was just how many instances Sutton/Walshe found of Pascoe making-up and/or deliberately distorting sources for his claims.

As I had tried, back in 2019, to get others to read Sturt's diaries for an understanding of how wrong Pascoe was, I was pleased to see how Sutton/Walshe did the same thing in their book ie use Sturt (along with a few other first-hand accounts) to demonstrate that Pascoe was simply, laughably, wrong.

Although it has to be acknowledged that the damage Pascoe and those who fell for his rubbish have done to our 'understanding' of aboriginal life-styles pre-1788, is hardly funny

On page 12 of this discussion SteeleRedux summed
things up rather well for Is Mise.

I'll quote a bit of it here:

Steele partly stated:

" You prattled on with "Academics have debunked Dark
Emu". They haven't debunked anything - instead
they did a critique of the book and took issue with a
number of positions taken by Pascoe... Dark Emu wasn't
an academic paper. It was in part an invitation to
look at the historic journals of those in early contact
with Indigenous peoples ..."

I, like Steele have also taken up Pascoe's invitation and
"found some truly enlightening things which show our
Indigenous folk in a very positive light."

Oc course not everyone is capable of doing that.
Which is fair enough.

There are others though who show how their new
archaeological research investigates Dark Emus idea of
Aboriginal agriculture and villages. The following
link explains:

http://www.theconversation.com/friday-essay-how-our-new-archaeological-research-investigates-dark-emus-idea-of-aboriginal-agriculture-and-villages-146754

"Dark Emu wasn't
an academic paper. "

That's very true.

In fact it was a work of fiction....that some dills thought was an academic paper. Until that idiocy was no long viable, whereupon they forgot they every thought it was factual.

No matter what some people criticize, what they
interpret - words and ideas
can change the world - as Robin Williams stated.

Foxy,

Pascoe, and others, use the title ‘Professor’ to describe himself (him) this is also misleading as he was appointed as an ‘Enterprise Professor’ which requires no academic achievement whatsoever.

He and his supporters always leave out the ‘Enterprise’ bit.

Have you nothing to say about the abbreviated quotes in the book?

Is Mise,

The following two links may help:

http://www.insidestory.org.au/reading-bruce-pascoe/

And -

http://www.fvas.unimelb.edu.au/news/bruce-pascoe-appointed-enterprise-professor-in-indigenous-agriculture